DISQUS

Sigivald · 3 years ago

The other alternative is to let people who do not wish to, simply not have health insurance.

And then make them pay for their own care when they fall ill.

If that happened, I suspect everyone who could afford insurance and did not have it now, would get at least catastrophic coverage.

(And I would support, of course, something to cover those who legitimately cannot afford any such insurance. Means testing, that is.)

robert108 · 3 years ago

Two problems: One, because of govt interference in the medical industry, prices are out of sight. Therefore, the average wage earner cannot afford even doctor visits at the present time. This is wrong. It is also wrong, IMO, to force those who are healthy to pay for those who are either sick or hypochondriacs. When you don't have to pay full price for something, you tend to use more of it. Those who pay are therefore unfairly charged for the excessive use by those who use the system. What happens is that everyone is encouraged to use as much as possible, which results in escalating prices and supply problems. If everyone paid with after-tax earnings for their health insurance, private insurance would have a level playing field with employer provided insurance, which would bring market forces back into play. It's not perfect, but it's a first step.

marc · 3 years ago

The other alternative is to let people who do not wish to, simply not have health insurance

Well that already is the case.

And then make them pay for their own care when they fall ill.

Sigivald, if only it were that simple. How do you make someone who doesn't own anything, rents, has a virtually worthless car, and can barely make ends meet, as it is, pay for anything especially health care.

Remember the policy of the US is 'everyone is entitled to health care regardless of their ability to pay'. Now you may not like that, but that policy isn't going to change. So get over it, and let's try to deal with what we can change.

Robert, I know we have had this discussion many times before, and while your theory sounds great and may (?) work, it isn't based in reality. It may not be fair for the healthy to pay for the sick, but then what happens to the healthy when they get sick? And they will get sick or injured, and need treatment some time. That is reality. And if they can't pay for their care, the bill still has to be paid. And guess who pays?

The only thing that is really fair is to ensure that everyone pays their fair share for health care.

If that means a single payer system funded thru payroll taxes or a value added tax on products, I would go along with that. If it means compulsory health insurance, like compusory auto insurance, then I would go along with that. Robert, I would likely even go along with your plan as long as the employer based insurance you talk about is compulsory.

I am in favor of anything that spreads the costs more fairly then is done now. And I agree there is no reason why some, whether it be a business or an individual, should pay a disproportionate share of health care costs.

And it is certainly not fair for someone who gets sick to be denied coverage, or pay a substantially increased amount for insurance, or lose their life savings getting treatment, simply because they have lost their job, as is the case right now in many instances.

robert108 · 3 years ago

Marc: "Spreading the cost" is fundamentally unfair. In a free society, the state "forcing" individuals to do anything other than obey the laws is inappropriate. Is it fair for someone to pay into a health insurance scheme for 20-30 years and never use it? It's like paying the Mafia for protection from their violence. The govt has essentially raised the price of health care beyond the average person's ability to pay, and now wants to force us to buy something some of us don't want. How is that fair, in any meaning of the word. As a leftie, you must be pro-choice on killing unborn children for birth control purposes, but you reject choice in the matter of purchasing health insurance. Please explain.
Again, the need to spread the cost among non-users is an indication that it's too expensive, and people wouldn't choose to buy it if they had to take personal responsibility for their own health. It is fundamentally unfair to force people to buy something they don't want, and I don't understand why you don't get that. It's creeping totalitarianism. The key word here is "force", or it's equivalent, "compulsory". Are you going to arrest people who don't purchase your compulsory insurance? Maybe we need some secret police to monitor this.

marc · 3 years ago

Marc: "Spreading the cost" is fundamentally unfair. In a free society, the state "forcing" individuals to do anything other than obey the laws is inappropriate...... It's creeping totalitarianism.

Then Robert, you must think we live in a totalitarianistic state, because if you have insurance, then you are being force to pay an artificially inflated price for insurance, to cover the costs of those that don't have insurance and need medical care. Based on that, I can only assume that you are satisfied with the health care policy in the US right now.

Spreading the cost disproportionately throught the population is unfair. Spreading it equally is not unfair.

To answer your question directly, yes it's fair for someone to pay into health care for 20 or 30 years, and not use it, because that is the definition of insurance. Everybody who needs coverage shares in the cost. And trust me, you will eventually need health care. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that. You don't like the concept of insurance then come up with another solution.

Again I'll bring up the point about auto insurance. You (provided you have a car) and I are forced to pay for car insurance, yet I don't see you complaining about that. Why should I have to buy car insurance? I'm not going to get into an accident, so why should I have to contribute to bad drivers. Again that is the definition of insurance.

Sure, nothing is fair in life, but the reality is, if you have health insurance, you are being forced to pay a disproportionate share of the cost to provide health care to those that are not insured.

Again, I'll repeat, let's deal with reality, not what shoulda, coulda or woulda have been. If you think the system is fair right now, then there is no sense discussing anything further. But if you don't think it is fair, then let's talk about ways to improve it.

And yes I do get, but I live in the real world, not the "Lost Horizon."

robert108 · 3 years ago

Marc: I don't believe, as I have already stated, that in a free society, the people should be forced by the state to do anything except to obey current laws. That includes all forms of coercion. It includes auto insurance, if it is compulsory. You are wrong about insurance. It is about assumption of risk. Life insurance is an example. It's cheaper if you are young, since you will probably pay a lot into it before you use it, and that is what pays the way. It could be the same for health insurance, if it was treated like a product. It is not necessary to make it totalitarian, unless you want to lie to the public, in the form of artificially low prices, to get them to accept it as a social obligation, which it isn't. It could be based on a realistic assessment of an individual's risk, which it isn't. Trying to "spread the risk" through coercion to follow a socialist idea is what is ruining the system. You don't live in the real world, you live in a Marxist utopia, where, just for giving up our freedom to choose, we will be rewarded with the "perfect society". Karl Marx called it "the dictatorship of the proletariat". Let medical care return to being a product sold in the marketplace. Ditto health insurance. Remove the govt subsidies, the inflated prices and the coercion to participate in the present pyramid scheme of state-supported "healthcare". It works every time it is tried, but the political class loses, and that is why we are being lied to by people like you. The answer to the problem is to go to the market, not to try to insulate ourselves from market forces. In my lifetime, health care has gone from being affordable to needing a totalitarian system to provide it, with the predictable shortages that exist in every other socialized healthcare system looming in our future. The answer is less govt, more choice, not more govt, less choice. Without govt subsidy, the medical industry would have to supply a reasonable product at a reasonable price. We would demand it, and they would supply it.

John · 3 years ago

Marc wrote:

Sigivald, if only it were that simple. How do you make someone who doesn't own anything, rents, has a virtually worthless car, and can barely make ends meet, as it is, pay for anything especially health care.

A problem arises because, were I only marginally employable, I wouldn't want the extra costs of healthcare to affect my potential employer's decision to hire me. It is a bad idea to require all companies to provide health care coverage to their employees. In hard economic times, it will add significantly to unemployment.

Regarding compulsory health insurance, Marc continues:

Again I'll bring up the point about auto insurance. You (provided you have a car) and I are forced to pay for car insurance, yet I don't see you complaining about that. Why should I have to buy car insurance? I'm not going to get into an accident, so why should I have to contribute to bad drivers. Again that is the definition of insurance.

This is a poor comparison. A car is a weapon. It is possible, in a car, that you injure someone to an extent beyond your means to make reparation. Without auto insurance, someone else is hurt because of your inability to pay. Without health insurance, only you are hurt when you can't pay.

Yes, it burdens the system when someone without health insurance receives care beyond their ability to pay, but I am against this too.

marc · 3 years ago

It seems that we've gotten off track with this discussion. We can go on and on talking in circles about what should and shouldn't be done. I really don't want to do that.

The fact is our health care system IS based on employers providing health care insurance to employees through a system of private insurers. Everyone is entitled to share in the fruits of the system, yet no one is required to pay for it.

Now legislation is before 30 states attempting to pass laws requiring only LARGE (a solid definition unknown) companies to provide a minimum amount of health insurance to their employees.

The point of this post, was not meant to bring about a discussion of our failed health care system, which I agree is flawed, but to discuss why it is only large companies that are being targeted to carry the burden of providing health care for society. If everybody expects to share in the fruits of the system, then everyone should have to pay to use that system.

Already more and more businesses are dropping coverage to employees because of the high cost. This legislation will do absolutely nothing, since 95% of large corporation already supply health care to their employees, but perpetuate a flawed system, forcing many more corporations to move operations overseas.

marc · 3 years ago

To Robert and John, I should have added that I don't totally disagree with your takes on the matter. I think we all agree that the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed. We just don't totally agree on the best way to accomplish that.

That's the purpose of these discussions.